Daily Archives: May 8, 2010

Pro-con: Should U.S. still allow drilling offshore?

oiloffshoreThe accident has galvanized foes of offshore drilling, who see in it a means to further curtail energy production in this country. But shutting off the spigot would be an even greater disaster for the country than what is now taking place in the Gulf of Mexico — distressing as that may be. For despite all the histrionics that routinely accompany such accidents, the reality is that petroleum powers modern civilization. Life as most Americans know it is inconceivable without vast amounts of relatively inexpensive energy — and it has to come from somewhere. Of course, energy extraction can, and must, be made safer — though it will never be risk free. But try to imagine the American economy without a robust energy sector. It’s simply inconceivable. — New York Post

There is no safe way to drill for oil in oceans. The BP disaster is an impetus to halt our dependence on oil and move to a clean energy future fast. Cost-benefit analysis shows this is the smart approach. Dirty fuels are undermining our national security and contributing to the future disasters that climate disruption will bring. We already have the technology to run our cars on electricity generated from wind and solar power. We will save energy as we improve the efficiency of transmission lines and update the nation’s power grid. Bold investments of this type would create millions of jobs and get us off dirty oil faster. The president should reinstate a federal moratorium on new offshore drilling and prevent future disasters — including climate disruption — by presenting the nation with a visionary plan to wean America from dirty energy for good. — Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club

Open thread 5/8

thread-comm

In denial about Islamic extremist threat?

timessquarebombIn the hours after the smoking SUV shut down Times Square, talk of who might be responsible indicated an unwillingness to say aloud what many were thinking. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for example, speculated it was “somebody with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill or something.’’ But bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad is not a “tea-partier-gone-wild or someone unable to take the pressure of home foreclosure, as some news reports intimated,” wrote Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi. “He told authorities his efforts to blow up innocent people are connected to the Pakistani Taliban.”
Nine years after Sept. 11, she went on, “the average citizen gets it. Some Muslim extremists want to kill Americans and will keep on trying to accomplish their mission. It’s the first thought that registers when a bomb is placed in cars, shoes or underwear by someone described as Muslim. What’s so terrible about acknowledging that link?” But that prompts another question: Would acknowledging a link make us safer?